User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

How I learned to stop worrying and to love the AFL-CIO

YPSL >> SDS

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Look at the discussion of the estrangement between Kahn and Michael Harrington: "Things got pretty bad", as Irving Howe said, is an understatement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The conflict between Kahn and Harrington became "pretty bad", according to Irving Howe. Harrington handed former SDS activist and New York City journalist Jack Newfield a speech by AFL–CIO President George Meany. Addressing the September 1972 Convention of the United Steelworkers of America, Meany had ridiculed the Democratic Party Convention, which had been held in San Francisco:

"We heard from the gay-lib [gay-liberation] people who want to legalize marriage between boys and boys, and between girls and girls. [...] We heard from the people who looked like Jacks, acted like Jills, and had the odor of Johns [customers of prostitutes] about them."

This gay-baiting taunt was attributed to Kahn by Harrington, and repeated by Newfield in his autobiography. Maurice Isserman's biography of Harrington also described this speech as Kahn's self hatred, as "Kahn's resort to gay bashing".

The blaming of Kahn for Meany's speech and Isserman's scholarship have been criticized by Rachelle Horowitz. According to Horowitz, Meany had many speech-writers—two specialists besides Kahn and even more writers from the AFL–CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE) Department. Horowitz stated, "It is in fact inconceivable that Kahn wrote those words" She quoted a concurring assessment from Arch Puddington: [Isserman] "assumes that because Kahn was not publicly gay he had to be a gay basher. He never was."

In 1991, even after Harrington's 1989 death, Howe warned Harrington's biographer, Maurice Isserman, that Kahn's description of Harrington "may well be a little nasty" and "hard line".

Joshua Muravchik

I added a footnote with the nice letter/critique/review of Manny Muravchik of his son's book. What a nice man and what an honorable family!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He describes himself as a neo-conservative, despite the disapproval of his social-democratic father and socialist mother.

His father criticized his Heaven on earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism:

"Josh Muravchik’s father, Manny, eighty-five-years-old, breathing through oxygen tubes, [was] handing out his own two-page Xeroxed affirmation of socialism." "Manny let the reader know that his own life, and that of Josh’s mother, would be impossible today absent the very sort of anti-market reforms—Medicare, rent-controlled apartments—for which they’d worked while Josh was still a pisher and toward which he sounded at best ambivalent today." "Father told son that if there was utopian impulse to be feared, it was that messianic laissez-faire nonsense he must have picked up once he’d left home. You think your mother and I could survive in your perfect world, Mr. Capitalist Shill?

His mother was too upset with his book to attend the discussion.

YPSL

Hey K. Wolf--

One of the minor annoyances in my life is the way the acronym YPSL redirects to the (post-1972) Young People's Socialist League page, rather than to Young People's Socialist League (1907). Since this now is a salad including a whole number of groups, most with no connection to the actual name, and those with the name with no legitimate continuity to the original organization, what do you say about the idea of renaming the YPSL page something like American Socialist Youth Movement (1972-date) or some such? Alternatively, the SDUSA, SPUSA, DSOC youth sections each to be split to their own pages.

The main redirect link for YPSL should go to the original 1907-1972 organization, in my view.

Thoughts? Carrite (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite's recommendation, and consider the 1907-1972 group to be vastly more notable than the later attempted reincarnations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite and Cullen!

Nice to hear an editorial question for a change.

The SPA's 1907-1972 YPSL is well document and easily notable, while the SPUSA's "YPSL" is much lesser known and may not be notable. Thus, YPSL should link to the SPA's youth section.

• The SDUSA/YPSL quickly became Young Social Democrats; I suspect that YSD and Frontlash (of the AFL-CIO) coordinated many activities.
• The DSOC/DSA Youth Section became Young Democratic Socialists in the 1990s. I believe that their most notable event was co-organizing A March Against Draft Registration.
• I never heard of the SPUSA's YPSL, before I read that the PA SDUSA/SPUSA group has charged that that name is a legally misappropriated. Its website had been folded into the SPUSA's, the last time I checked.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Carl Gershman

Hi Carrite!

Your comments are welcome on Carl Gershman. You may find his discussion of American radicalism stimulating, although you need not share his preference for Woodrow Wilson over Karl Marx!

;)

Notice that he did not sign the 1993 "America needs a social-democratic movement", if my eyes see correctly.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

blanking self. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilson's treatment of Debs was abominable, granted, I detest Wilson's anti-semitism, etc. But his attempts to reduce the punitive WWI peace accords were worthy efforts. I've not read Keynes, but I suppose his comments on the peace treaty may contain some interesting discussion of Wilson, perhaps ...?

Please remember Gershman and the NED's support of Solidarity, when you lay yourself down to sleep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rescued Vietnamese boat-people being given water.

I understand that many people were horrified by the conduct of the Vietnam War. However, it is important to consider the victims of communism, who were left defenseless when the U.S. withdrew.

Have you read the account of Hanoi's crack-down against democrats in the recent Dissent (magazine)? (It is important to remember that "Justice is always a fugitive from the victorious side.")

I think that many people, including most of my Harringtonian friends, have difficulty considering whether Gershman and others may have been correct, in many many matters, or even acknowledging that Gershman and others in SDUSA had legitimate concerns and behaved to protect civilians from reprisals from a ruthless regime:

• Rustin, Bayard; Gershman, Carl (1978). Africa, Soviet imperialism and the retreat of American power. SD papers. Vol. 2. New York: Social Democrats, USA. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gershman, Carl (1978). "After the dominoes fell". Commentary. SD papers. 3. New York: Social Democrats, USA: 89–93. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Bayard Rustin's interview had an intelligent and honest discussion of his difficulties as a former pacifist:

• Anonymous; Rustin, Bayard (1982), Interview with Bayard Rustin, 1982 (41:03:24 minutes, video interview with synchronized transcript), Open Vault Media Archives, WGBH {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "cite web" ignored (help)

The Goddess of Liberty, a memorial to the Tiannamenn Square movement, by the Chinese people of Hong Kong. See also Tank Man.

You had written before that the SDUSA article needed a description of "rightward movement": Is that description really WP:NPOV? Is it really so "right-wing" to stop quoting Marx and to quote Jefferson instead? (I like both, wishing that Marx was not so nasty all the time ....) Consider the case of George Anastaplo, who was barred from ever practicing law simply because he stated that American constitutional law supported the right of revolution discussed in the Declaration of Independence. You should read the dissent by Justice Hugo Black, the whole of which has been added to WikiMedia:

"The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War.

Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those.

In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. ^[1] Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself.

This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. ^[2] It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France ^[3]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots ^[4]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party ^[5]-men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.

But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. ^[6] This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free."

I remind you that Karl Marx humbled himself in congratulating Abraham Lincoln upon his Election. Consider whether Marx and Gershman may both be correct in their admiration for the American heritage of the Declaration of Independence...!

:-)

Give me that old-time Declaration of Independence.

It was good enough for Schenck

It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Debs, citizen and socialist.

It's good enough for me.

My friend Carrite, and other readers, greater respect is due a small band of American social democrats, bad mouthed by generations of New Leftists and even by the associates of Michael Harrington, who worked tenaciously for civil rights and democracy in the U.S. and abroad. Perhaps you judge them to have been thinking wishfully about protecting civil society from communism in Vietnam; did they have any influence on Nixon's policy? Do you really think that they helped prolong that war?

At least acknowledge that they worked with all their might to help Poland's Solidarity (with help from the magnificent Swedish labor unions and others)---at least that effort deserves respect!

Ruminating,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Mr. George Anastaplo exchanged letters with Hook in the 1950s.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you are confusing whether they moved to the right with whether they were correct to do so. No one is making the argument that SDUSA was a right-wing organization, merely that they were farther to the right than other left-wing organizations. The term "right" here is used in relative not absolute terms. TFD (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TfD,

I publicly was asking Carrite to reconsider his remarks about CG (to which you need not have access). In particular, I asked whether stating that CG had moved to the right (since 1980) was NPOV, and arguing the contrary position.

CG was a leader of SDUSA through 1980. By 1993 CG seems to have stopped signing public statements by SDUSA, so CG's subsequent career seems irrelevant to a description of SDUSA.

Both Carrite and you have previously suggested statements to the effect that SDUSA had moved to the right, the question that I think concerns you now. I would repeat that the trajectories of former SDUSA members does not imply anything about a movement of the organization. Conclusions about organizations require analyses of organizational resolutions/programs/publications or member surveys; anecdotes about individual members acting outside of the organization carry negligible weight. (I noted that anecdotes about Manning Marable's public support of Castro's regime or criticism of Eastern European dissidents says nothing about DSA.)

That said, your qualification that SDUSA was relatively right for organizations on the left is a big improvement over previous statements by many editors.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although some editors may have belonged to various left-wing groups, I do not see that they are POV-pushing. In any case, whether a party moved to the right is something that we would determine from what sources say rather than through our own judgment. But I do not see anything wrong with scholars basing their views on the actions of individual members. Political parties, especially on the Left, routinely expel members who hold unacceptable political views or support rival parties. They would not appoint Linda Chavez, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, etc.[7] to an organizing committee and invite them to speak at a symposium on socialism. The speakers appear to be more conservative than one would have found in the SPA. Again, the comment is that they had moved to the right, not that they were right-wing. TFD (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TFD, I am enjoying our civil discussion. :-)

I don't understand your first comment. Maybe I made some off-hand reference to WP:COI elsewhere? I don't believe that I have mentioned anybody's membership here. (I have mentioned Carrite's self-disclosed memberships and my affections elsewhere.)

Of course, we all believe in reliable sources rather than our POV/OR ....

Now, let's discuss your POV/OR, which is very interesting! ;)

Your comments about symposia seem plausible .... However, one should distinguish between the purpose of symposia. If one wishes to attract a crowd or build one's credibility toward the center, then one invites friendly persons as far right as possible (for a serious discussion and civility), because then one appears to embody moderation and good sense.

I could imagine that SDUSA invited Kirkpatrick and Chavez partly to have a transcript where a honest person could see them being criticized by the SDUSA leadership (which was rather amused by the repeated stories that Kirkpatrick and Chavez and Elliot Abrams were SDUSA members, I have been told. You proposed repeating these rumors on Wiki, a few weeks ago!) Joshua Muravichik was widely criticized at various fora, but civilly. He is smart and stimulating, and sometimes funny, so why not invite him?

The symposium was on Muravchik's book, about socialism. For such a discussion, it makes sense to have half the panel be ex-socialists. Do you think liberals ignorant of socialism could carry on a discussion about this topic? It would be like asking the people at Labor Notes to discuss option pricing and quasi-martingales!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can also see that SDUSA invited Fred Siegel, Jim Chapin, Paul Berman, Harold Meyerson, etc., from DSA or at least from the Michael Harrington/Irving Howe "leftwing of the possible"—essentially people "a little" to their left. They also invited labor leaders associated with DSA, whose names I won't mention.

Meyerson and maybe Muravchik are the only sources that discuss these symposia, imho, and neither draws the conclusion you and Carrite have suggested drawing. Maybe you have greater access to the WSJ, WP, NYT, NewsDay, etc.? Good luck with your searching!

I am sorry to hear about your opinions about organizations expelling people. I have read David McReynolds's blog lamenting about the change of culture in the SPUSA, which was apparently as nice as anybody could have hoped in the 1970s, and the rise of expulsions in the last years, e.g. PA and other states.

McReynolds has also noted a tendency to focus on the pre-1920s era and Marxism, to the exclusion of other parts of the heritage. Too bad David has not edited yet on WP's American Left, at least not identifying himself!

;) *LOL*

I would value David's comments!

I think that DSA and SDUSA tried to maintain a broad and civil "big tent" atmosphere, which would be attractive to members who had experienced enough sectarianism earlier in their lives. In all honesty, DSA's Manning Marable was the only person I ever heard getting "called on the carpet", after he made some criticisms of Eastern Europe dissidents, similar to things CPUSA hacks would write, and I don't think he was expelled; he may have just stepped down from the NEC. I don't remember.

In editorial solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would be useful to make a list of notable SPUSA members for the SPUSA article: Who are the notable labor leaders, politicians, writers and academics associated with the SPUSA?

I do not see why you call it "wild rumours" that they were SDUSA members. It could be that their memberships lapsed before the change of name. Lipset for example left the SPA in 1960. Muravchick was also in the SPA. But the entire SDUSA organizing committee seems to be socialists or former socialists. But as you say, we should not engage in OR, merely reflect what sources say, which is that SDUSA moved to the right. Saying they tried to appeal to the center is saying they moved to the right. TFD (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know of no reliable source that states that SDUSA moved to the right.

SDUSA was known mainly through the activities of a few members. I have wished you luck finding coverage of SDUSA's conventions and actions after the 1970s: I doubt that you can find a reliable source covering SDUSA. Have you found anything?

There was very little coverage of DSA either, and most of it was devoted to Michael Harrington and written as personal interest stories, like updates on the tallest skyscrapers of Topeka Kansas rather than as serious political coverage.

Again, we have profound disagreements. Socialists in the 1950s and 1960s were active in the civil rights movement and the anti-poverty movement and successfully appealed to the center. Like Norman Thomas, Norman Rockwell was not alone in the belief that a little black girl should be able to go to a school, just as much as a little white boy.

Similarly, socialists supported Solidarity because it was the right thing to do, and that support was effective because they had ties to Republicans and because the U.S. had a history of bipartisan foreign policy---just as Sweden has had a history of civilized foreign policy---which excluded the Swedish communist party as being undemocratic at least through Tag Erlander's långst leadership.

Democrats and democratic socialists have long appealed to the center---even Communists like Marx and Gramsci thought that appealing to the majority was useful, and obligatory. Movements that are democratic and wish to accomplish something must make some appeals to the center.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are saying they did not appeal to the right, they appealed to the center. That's just semantics. Unfortunately, SDUSA was so small and ineffectual that only section devoted to it in any book is from Busky's overview of social democracy. Certainly there were civil rights leaders who were members of the SPA, but the the SPA did not play a leading role in anything in its final decades. TFD (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you might consider whether Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, James Farmer, Stokely Carmichael, etc., etc., might know more than you about the role of socialists in the civil rights movement. Not all parts of the SPA carried on the tradition of Victor Berger.

About inefficacy: The members seemed to have led many major unions, nationally, and they also seemed to have done the Lord's work in helping Poland's Solidarity: Again, I would submit that Solidarity and the post-Communist Polish government may know more than you.

23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~

You are using two logical fallacies - the argument from authority and the argument ad hominem. And doing "the Lord's work" is wacky. The rules of logic have equal application to social sciences. I see no evidence that these people made the same conclusions that you did, and in any case it would not be relevant to the discussion. TFD (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, When you have a reliable source backing up your POV, put it on the discussion page of the article and we'll discuss something concrete.

It's a fact that SDUSA members did much (perhaps most) of the organizing for the AFL-CIO's support for Solidarity, which made a huge difference to Poland and the world. Your stating that they were ineffective is just baloney.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that SDUSA members did things, some even served in the Reagan adminstration, but that is not the same thing as saying the party did anything. TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the talk page of the article. If you can write something that improves the article, then I should be delighted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Please check/verify the DYK nomination for Carl Gershman:

• ... that the President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman, served with the "domestic Peace Corps"—Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)—in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during 1965–1967?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do intend to do this (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). I've actually mostly finished the review, but I quit to cogitate on how the hook could be made to be punchier. (Also, it would be nice to know -- for the article -- what he did in Pittsburgh, but that may be too much to ask.) --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orlady!

Your review would be great!

I shortened my first version, in a gloomy funk about the lack of historical awareness of our audience. (Only a few hundred people looked at Tom Kahn's DYK ....) Gershman's personal papers lists publications, and many are in Pittsburgh newspapers. Finding more details might involve OR or involve primary sources about his life.

I think JSTOR had one mention of Gershman and VISTA, but I believe that it was a comment that Gershman had written criticism of SDS's version of community organizing (but I would bet only my lunch money and need high odds to accept a wager!).

I first suggested his YPSL activism in my first hook (on the article's talk page). However, I dropped this hook, given his tendency to keep distance between YPSL/SDUSA in his youth, in the last decades, per WP:BLP and DYK suggestions.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and RS/BLP/NPOV concerns

Freedom House

Thanks!

For the improvements on Freedom House. It made the article WAY better. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi OpenFuture!

Thanks for the "'attaboy"!  :-)

There are even worse problems (e.g. apparent copyright issues) at the article on FH's Freedom in the World, which I trust shall be resolved soon, by a wise administrator.

I'm a statistician and admirer of North Carolina's fine Sociology Department. Looking at those FH/FitW articles, I immediately saw the name of Ken Bollen, the writer of the best book on LISREL/structural equation models. Ken certainly would not jeopardize his reputation by writing what our articles said he did.

I get headaches just contemplating the clean-ups needed to because of right-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/Trotskyists and left-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/CEOs/cold-warriors/anti-communists/Americans etc. And now I realize that most of these POV articles have been plagiarized from websites like "RightWeb" and "JewWatch".

Oh the times, Oh the morals ....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I saw that you edited Nissan Pivo. "Pivo" means beer in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. However, I'm sure the name comes from "pivot", not because they drunk czech lager. :-) See also Honda Fitta (which was quickly renamed). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, that would have sold well in Nordic countries!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed discussion

Freedom in the World Wow. Is this what I can expect on retirement - editors believing they can piss on my reputation from a great height because I won't be around to deal with complete nonsense like this? (a) most of the text you have issues with is in quote marks. It's not "closely paraphrased", it's the same as the source. Obviously. (b) you want to delete the article because you have issues with a section? no. (c) you demand page numbers for some things, despite clearly having access to the original text, so that a simple find in page would give you the answer. (d) evidently your problem is not copyright, but POV. Deal with it by editing and/or talkpage discussion or other forms of dispute resolution. PS Yes, it was clearly done in an over-quoted bullet-point fashion to save time; it should be rewritten, but that's a totally different issue. Rd232 talk 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I am concerned only with your having introduced an unreliable source into the article by extensive paraphrase that violates WP policy on copyrights/paraphrasing. It is not just quotation, but extensive quotation from one page and not using other sources or other ideas that makes the problem severe. It is obviously a violation of copyright/copy and pasting/or related policies. The source is unreliable. Just look at his mis-use of Bollen. There is no point in my adding page references to unreliable sources. You edited your talk page 3 days ago, I noted when I left the message. If you have forgotten that you still are active, then such lapses would explain a lot. 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) (a) I'm trying to leave, and I'm officially retired; you couldn't be sure I'd respond. Don't pretend otherwise. (b) you seem to have to trouble with the concept of paraphrasing. (c) Academic sources are WP:RS, unless much effort has gone into proving otherwise. That hasn't happened here. (d) part of the reason there's so much quotation from that source is that it summarises a bunch of other relevant sources. It would be better to go to them directly, but that's a lot more work. No-one's stopping you! Now, withdraw this copyright bullshit, or I may be provoked to postpone my retirement briefly in order to investigate what other misuse you have made of Wikipedia policies. Rd232 talk 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC) WP policy suggests leaving notices about copyright violations on user's page, to allow assessment of whether there be a pattern. I'm telling you that there are huge problems with that article. Look at the misuse of Bollen and act responsibly. I'm a statistician and know Bollen, and it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work. Comparing Bollen with your source will reveal other worrisome things, which cannot be discussed on WP. I am well aware of the policies you mention. Investigate as much as you want. Scrutiny is welcome.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) " it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work." - I strongly object to the word "misusing". I was relying on a reputable academic source. If you have issues with that source, fine, deal with it in the usual way. Rd232 talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1. I don't see the copyright violation. 2. rd232: Stop being hysterical. Nobody is "pissing on your reputation", that's absolutely ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Copyright violation issues are an excellent way of very rapidly losing the respect of the Wikipedia community (and rightly so). It is therefore not an accusation to be made, or taken, lightly. Rd232 talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Look Rd232, I'm sorry for not editing the template to remove the warning about blocking if copyright violation occurred. I have known that you are an experienced and trusted editor. I have never believed that such extensive quoting, even with quotation marks, was symptomatic of your editing. I just believed that I should follow policy and leave such a warning, with its convenient links to the article and the sources, on your page. I should have specialized it for you.~Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) It's not the issue of blocking, it's that there was no copyright issue here at all; you had a POV issue and saw some quotation (substantial quotation, yes, but not "extensive") and decided to make a copyright issue where there isn't one. I'm happy to concede a quality issue (that the article would be better if the section was rewritten without bullets and less quotation), but that doesn't require my attention. Rd232 talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Well, you are a sysop and may well be a Time Lord for all I know. But in my simple-minded experience of temporality, I believe that you have the chronology backwards. ;) Check the history. :-) I first did the tagging of the article because of copyright violation concerns. Later, I tagged the unreliable source and complained about the absence of page numbers. I had wished that my having stated my concerns about NPOV/RS before an administrator ruled on the copyright violation would be a sign of my good faith, that would (0) spur you to add page numbers, which would aid an administrator responding to the copyrightviolation bat signal, (1) warn the administrator to be cautious about my possibly having a POV bias, and (2) prevent questions about my good faith being raised later if my understanding of copyright/paraphrasing/etc. be wrong (in which case, I would raise a fuss about the article you are using). At the last few RfAs, User:SandyGeorgia's fire-and-brimstone sermons scared the hell out of everybody, and it may be that I have over reacted. If so, then I would be especially sorry for my errors, even more than I am sorry now for having interrupted your shuffleboard sessions! ;) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Well I'm only moderately clear what you're on about but I do note that you still haven't withdrawn your request to have the entire page deleted for a non-violation of copyright within one section. And you know or can easily check the page numbers, and otherwise improve the section through editing, since you clearly have the source to hand (which I don't). Now, I'm retired, I've made my points, do what you like. Rd232 talk 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Violating copyright is a fast way of losing respect, yes. Being accused of it without actually doing it is not, so cool down, OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Have you bothered to compare the articles? Cooly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC) An expert on copyright policy rewrote the "criticism" section with problems. She thought a few problems existed but that they all were minor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Committee on the Present Danger Moonriddengirl, our hero, yanked the tagged paragraphs from that article. My batting average ain't too shabby, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Below, I was attacked for tagging a slew of articles as possible copyright violations (after I noticed that they had copied verbatim passages from RightWeb (also an unreliable source) and had been uploaded by one IP one day). I was accused of misusing the copyright-tags for nefarious political purposes .... I was very pleased that Mrg, WP's copyright expert, that such extensive copying made deleting text or extensive rewriting prudent, so much so that she deleted one section and rewrote another. (Curiously, nobody has retracted the allegations that I was misusing (possible) copyrightviolation-tags, especially for political purposes.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard drama

Closed discussion

Personal attacks This is my last request to you to stop making personal attacks against other editors as you did here.[8] If you continue to make personal attacks against other editors, I will report it to WP:ANI. TFD (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I did not make a personal attack. I am trying to understand why have repeatedly imputed erroneous interpretations of my sentences. I am trying to assume good faith about you. I have poor vision, and I can understand that for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned? It is not a personal attack for me to state that Busky's book is bad, and that continued good-faith reliance on it must be naive or involves paraconsistent logic. We have the history of our discussions of SDS and Leninism, and several other topics, where you have criticized me: I would welcome a scrutiny of our respective contributions and compliance with WP:NPA. Regarding Lipset as a reading assignment: You yourself cited a book co-authored by Lipset (but whose coauthor should now also appear in your American Left footnotes, please): Despite having some errors, Lipset's JSTOR-article's description of SDUSA in the Reagan years is better than Busky's, and you should read his brief accounts(s) before inserting text on the issue of SDUSA and Reagan. (He erroneously and without citation describes SDUSA as pro Vietnam War, btw.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) TFD, thanks for taking up the editor's burden, and fixing those Lipset/Marks footnotes pronto! Well done, Sir! I shall see you tomorrow, after a good night's sleep. I trust that our cease-fire shall hold until the morning.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) You are being discussed at ANI.[9] TFD (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) This is about the 4th time that you have cried at a noticeboard. Every time you do, you seem to face more criticism than the last. How many boomerangs must whop you upside the head before you learn ...? (forgot to sign earlier,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Good question

For how can you compete
Being honour bred ...?

Noticeboards, Schmoticeboards

Closed discussion

buddy stuff advive to go lil slow on such comments as You came at the beck and call of your master, and did his bidding. You overlook and refuse to criticize your master's misbehavior, particularly his allegations of bad-faith and political bias not great at ANI. i believe you adviced me as such last time some idiot hauled me up and sulked to the admins, and it worked for me. (dubious as it sometime is) but i should like to reciprocate the support and advice. WP is a strange world..;) although I've since realised why: WP is not an encyclopaedia as i was originally led to believe, it is social media. now that i understand it helps getting past the BSLihaas (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Lihaas, Thanks for your help and friendly advice. I was attacked and accused of violating NPOV, when I cleaned-up articles. Now User:Moonriddengirl has responded to my worries about a possible copyright violation at Freedom in the World, rewriting the section to comply with Wikipedia policies, of which she is a recognized master: She did not think that it was a major problem, but she did the revision nonetheless. Shall a stream of apologies be forthcoming from those who accused me of manipulative tagging of spurious "copyright violations", duplicitously to further some political agenda, now that a master has noted that some rewriting was prudent? Normally, I try to ignore violations of AGF and NPA, when directed against me. (Somebody calling an editor a Jew/communist, or you a fascist is another matter, as you know.) However, ANI is perhaps the most central public forum on WP, and letting charges go unanswered would encourage further calumnies. (For outside readers, I note that those charges had been made against me, only some by the faithful agent, before I replied in kind.) Your being bothered with an RFC was another matter, whose analysis can be made by e-mail if you like. I prefer to write and edit in the mathematical sciences, where the established editors have knowledge and scholarship, rather than in areas where demos have voted 1+1=3 and such lies are celebrated as NPOV. Sincerely and with best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. The motto "Nemo me impune lacessit" is an obsolete relic; similar concerns with one's good name appear chiefly to characterize archetypal anachronisms from an earlier age. "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people. I require the same from them". (The Shootist): "The World According to John Wayne as Seen in The Duke's Top Ten Philosophical Quotes - AMC Movie Blog - AMC". Blogs.amctv.com. 2010-07-01. Retrieved 2010-08-29.

Love potion number nine

Closed discussion

A review of the Westminster Larger Catechism is in order: A144: The duties required in the Ninth Commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; [2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24] A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47] Room for improvement Not my best sides, particulary when I am defensive: [11] "Speaking the truth unseasonably", and [22-26] "scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring", and [42] "scornful contempt".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The annotated K.W.

My misspellings were corrected and an allusion linked by kind Shirt58, after which I linked the other allusions:

I am rather tired of defending myself against cherubim, seraphim, and powers and principalities of the air, and even MFs at ANI.

It may be time to remove the copyright and paraphrase policies, on Wikipedia, and to rename the project Plagiarism-pedia.

I can always retreat to the Mathematics project, where we don't have NPOV debates about whether 1+1=3, but you are going to be over-run by tribbles cooing contentedly. You shall hear them cooing each to each. (I know that they will not coo to me.)

Have you ever discussed moving to a more serious public-access project, perhaps with PoD or other frequent collaborators? Some of the mathematicians have already left for projects limited to competent collaborators."

Appreciating the correction, I noted that WP and MF do not approve of editing another's comments, which spurred this discussion:

See also Reginald Scot

Closed discussion

Hey Kiefer.Wolfowitz! You wrote: I thank you for your corrections and . (I would beware of editing anybody else's comments.) As Oscar Wilde said, "there are two kinds of Wikipedia editors: those who know what "Malleus Fatuorum" means without having to Google it up, and those who are going to be severely bashed by that hammer. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I made the mistake of correcting another editor's typo, and received a stern warning not to repeat that mistake when he reverted me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The hammer references have always escaped me, perhaps it's time to Google MF (and so learn that MF means "Hammer of Fools" 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)). (I did not have the experience of a classical education.) I just referenced the older gunfighter in John Wayne's The Shootist, reflecting on the archaic notion of honor: In many stories, the old gunfighter just wants to be left alone but is regularly bothered by some punk coming along to challenge him, either for a thrill or to make a name for himself. Maybe they have some kind of death wish (thanatos) that they can fulfill best by bothering better editors. The Scot article was very interesting, as was the linked book on the discovery of witchcraft. An article that cites Keith Thomas is always promising!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I thought the hammer around here weighs ten pounds. Those who relish verbal combat will find plenty of it here, while those who are lovers rather than fighters can find many pastures teeming with wildflowers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC) When challenged by an honorable opponent, I have never ceased from verbal fight nor has my sword slept in my hand.... I dreamed to mend whatever sectarian mischief seemed to afflict Wikipedia, but now that winds of August blow I learned that I was crack-pated when I dreamed. Wikipedia is run by fatuous children dedicated to giving those even more ignorant and undisciplined a play-stage.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I was not in a good mood when I wrote that. However, it has been quoted by a fan, so by WP rules it has to stay. Please preface it with "Today I'm fed up, and not in the mood to qualify statements with 'some', 'and grown ups', 'sometimes', 'or it feels this way at the moment', sprinkled liberally: For example,"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wisdom

Heh

(diff | hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎; 12:13 . . (+780) . . Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs | block) (→RfC threat: It is hard to see any good coming out of these past drama shows, , I probably should not have wasted my time responding to them.)

Very true, just remove "probably". :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

*LOL*. Thanks for the reality check!

There is an encyclopedia to write.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yawp about barbarism

"A crucial turning point occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased identifying the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves ... was the construction of new forms of community within which moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness." "What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time."

(Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, p. 263)

Repeated "grow a pair" sexism

Closed discussion

Posted at WP:WikiProject Feminism and WP:WikiProject LGBT Hi brothers and sisters and fellow somewhat ambiguous persons, (1) At an ANI about me, an editor that an administrator "grow a pair" and block me. My reply requested that the editor avoid sexist terminology like "grow a pair", particularly when addressing editors (me) displaying the Livestrong userbox (about testicle cancer). The sexist remark was not redacted, and nobody else objected the sexism. (2) An administrator who had closed yesterday's ANI, removed the Livestrong (testicle-cancer survivor) user-box in a special and final edit . The next day he repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard. (3) Then an arbcom administrator repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard. None of these remarks have been redacted, and nobody else has objected to them. After I wrote "Nobody gives a shit about your gonads" in response to the last "grow a pair", there has been another suggestion of blocking me. I am not a saint. The ANI arose mostly because of my clean-ups of articles on American socialism. At my worst, I had firmly criticized an edit describing the majority of the Socialist Party of America (includingMichael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Sandra Feldman, Rachelle Horowitz, etc.) as "democratic centralist (Leninist)"; this edit had removed "Stalinist" before "Stalinist democratic-centralism" from an unreliable source.I also asked a fellow who kept misunderstanding what I wrote whether he had poor vision, like myself. However, whatever my faults, I do not deserve the last two repeated, consciously sexist (but intended to be humorous 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)) pokes, at least one of which was (in my hour of darkness but not now, 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)) a deliberate baiting. In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hi everybody, I wrote "somewhat ambiguious" in the sense of "less definitely male than I once was". My experience of a bilateral orchiectomy has been repeated terror, not practice. I believe that men's feelings on these matters are similar to women's on mastectomies and hysterectomies: Having had one radical mastectomy and one hysterectomy, a woman may be forgiven for being irritated by statements about "hysteria" or "that time of the month" or "a pair of tits". Say, three statements that a "pair of tits" makes a "real woman" who would be able to step in and care for somebody, in a situation where caring was called for—if the synechdoche and metonymy were ever made. This irritation would be pardonable, imho, especially if she had asked that such sexist statements cease (noting that she displayed a pink-ribbon user-box) immediately after the first comment. I am happy to have raised awareness about sexism and cancer. I also am happy to discuss this issue with those like Cullen's son (below).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) This user supports the fight against breast cancer. P.S. Why would a bilateral orchiectomy be so terrible, in practice (not in imagination or as an instinct)? Men who have been fully castrated have been able to use testosterone supplements and mechanical erectile-devices for decades. Ditto with men with Type 2 diabetes. Men with prostate cancer are often advised to have an orchiectomy. Schools of medicine and social-work often have educational videos about sexuality and disabilities, which are required viewing. Correspondence Personal reply I have a 21 year old son who was born with a variety of minor to moderate "birth defects". Among those defects was an undescended testicle, which did not respond to a variety of treatment attempts. Such a testicle is at a greatly increased cancer risk, and about ten years ago, it was removed on the advice of his personal physician. I will never forget his deep and understandable fear in the hours before the procedure, and how he insisted that a note be written in marking pen on his thigh to ensure that the surgeon did not accidentally remove the functional one. My compassion is with you, as it is with my son who contends with a wide variety of challenges with cheerfulness and grace. Let us look forward to the day when no one would repeat such a demeaning remark especially after its painful impact is pointed out. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I had the privilege to meet Michael Harrington once and hear him speak a few times, and I know enough enough about the others you mentioned to know that characterizations such as "democratic centralist" and even more so, "Stalinist" are simply absurd when applied to such people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I am not entirely sure what kind of dispute you got yourself into and chances are you probably did manage to get yourself into a sanctionable position. However, I agree that it is quite bad that others (including admins) did manage to get away with insulting your physical amputation and disability. Since there isn't any process that checks the power and conduct of administrators, I think you are pretty much stuck with this kind of abuse. You can try to bring this to ArbCom and see if they will do anything about it. Meanwhile, you should try not to break any rules or you may find yourself banned very quickly. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the good advice!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) ADDED: You should be careful about being condescending in science pages. A lot of them are roamed by actual Ph.D's and professors (i.e people with at least your level of academic credentials). Even if you don't agree with their edits, do make sure you pay the proper respects and be open-minded about the possibility being wrong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I cannot think of a single time I've had these conflicts on Wikipedia in mathematics or statistics. I started a bit roughly on Bayesian probability, but within a month I think that I had learned the ropes. I mentioned elsewhere sometimes disagreeing with some leading statisticians here, but we've always worked it out. (The only conflict in statistics was with an editor who no longer edits.) I presume you are a frequentist? I am surprised you didn't start a war in the hostile territory ;) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Whatever the intellectual problems of the ecumenical movement (and pedagogical problems of the new math), the end of the ecumenical movement (like the new math) influenced my childhood, and I was exposed to Catholics, Protestants from other traditions, and even Jews in my church (and at summer camp) at an early age. I have always been allergic to cults and catechisms (I quote the Presbyterians, like many other things, ironically), and I have tried to seek out the good in opposing viewpoints. (For example, after I gave a friend Dissent, he gave me National Review, and I was surprised that most of the writers seemed like nice people with interesting views, although on most US political questions we would disagree. No wonder that Michael Harrington and William F. Buckley were friends.) To me, when I hear people talk about "Bayesian" and "frequentist", I am reminded too much of racist and anti-semitic and anti-Catholic bigotry I heard, rather openly, in my hometown, or contemporary anti-Israel or anti-Muslim or anti-Sami or anti-Gypsy or anti-American bigotry in Sweden. I was pleased when Abraham Wald showed that Bayesian procedures characterized reasonable classes of statistical procedures around 1950, so that among mathematical statisticians there is no theoretical difference. I was also pleased to learn how streamlined the neo-Fisherian likelihood approach is, which is popular among many British statisticians, but parts of it seem dogmatic and cultlike, and don't the applicability towards prediction and practice (operations research and designing studies) that Bayesian and decision-theoretic statistics do. I tried to explain that de Finetti wanted to give a subjective definition of probability that could be falsified by finite sequences, which seemed quintessentially frequentist (more than the "frequentism" that Kolmogorov abandoned c. 1964) and make some other changes that everybody knew were correct. Well, they were mostly reverted, but some parts of the article improved because of the ensuing discussion. You can look at fiducial probability to see that properly referenced material thrives there, although I know (no quotes) that the stuff is nuts! *LOL* So I do not regard myself as the anti-Christ, and was at first amused but now less amused by the various statements about my editing behavior. (I believe that Carrite gave a fair account of me at the ANI, at least regarding political articles, but I don't recognize myself in the others' descriptions: You can see that much of these antagonisms, at least the three for which a wise administrator suggested an interaction-ban, started at RfAs, where conflicts have been over my opposition to having minors be administrators and my statements about scholarship as well as the less delightful parts of my personality)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Dear Cullen, I'm very sorry to hear about your son. His doctors were right, that the non-descent is one of the largest risk factors, and I won't second guess their decision: Unless your insurance allows MRIs, it would be very difficult to find a tumor until it was too late to avoid an orchiectomy and threat of secondary tumors---and the miraculous increase in five-year survival rates following platinum-based cytotoxins don't provide much comfort when we know nothing about their carcinogenic effects (which will be showing up in the next 30 years). I had the same fear before the orchiectomy, and my Swedish doctor made the same precaution with a pen, and explained that only one would be removed while they did the biopsy of the second, and they would never remove both at once, but give the patient some time. I'm sure your son experienced the same animal fear, which is a product of at least a billion years of evolution, and that fear is not something I'd wish on anybody, and certainly a fear from which a young man should be spared. The other testicle afterwords increases testosterone, which will be more of a concern only in later years: He'll do better in school with just one! And fertility is not a problem: Its only the 5-15% cuckoldry rates (and rapes, which one wishes is dropping) that have kept humans' at double the size they need for fertilization. Usually I would just remark to myself "ignore the assholes (thinking to myself)nonsaints" but I was tired after days of dealing with the ANI and the RfC. Somebody should say "no, this kind of sexism is inappropriate". I didn't know that Kaldari was on-line, and I thought I would stop the repetition fastest just by reminding people of what I had written at the ANI: Castration can be a useful topic of conversation: Swedes and Finns have convinced me of the value of silence. When I had earlier objected to somebody's description of one of WP's finest editors as "courting the WP fraternity" among a lot of other nasty misogynist phrases, and having people deny that there was any sexism---then it was also Kaldari who appeared and explained that those phrases were entirely inappropriate. I had thought that these issues had been settled in work and public life soon after the Clarence Thomas hearings in the U.S., and probably around that time in Northwestern Europe too. I had thought that the younger generations were even more (perhaps too) alert that sexism was inappropriate, particularly deliberate prolonged sexism. People typically edit after work, when their inhibitions have dropped, and adults do talk like adults, so I cannot stay upset. Now I don't believe the most knowledgeable administrator was being especially vicious; the phrase may have just stuck in his head. (My memory is so different than non-historians' that assuming good-faith is less automatic for me than I would like.) For me, this was just the last example of one-sidedness in the application of "civility", about which I had been complaining during the last 4 days. Politics: Bayard Rustin had the courage to face death and did experience a chain gang to bring democracy to the USA. Michael Harrington was over at my house and I attended his funeral, and he was about the nicest guy I have ever met: Irving Howe said that he found the Christian charity of Michael beautiful. Tom Kahn worked wonders to help Solidarity, which has never been forgotten by Poles; a friend of mine told me yesterday that he remembers the AFL-CIO's donated printing presses in corners of peoples' flats (which had been smuggled with the help of Swedish and French unions!). Our article called them "democratic centralists" (but not "Stalinists" like the SPUSA pamphlet)for 5 years. I don't believe that I over-reacted, as I explained to Carrite (above), but I can understand that most editors may think that I was a lunatic. I've given up hope that my ANI antagonists have the knowledge or energy to educate themselves about content disputes, even in politics. Nobody seemed to understand that it was a smear to drop Elliot Abrams and Iran Contra into the SDUSA paragraph, as well as being a lie. And I've warned the editor about it, just hours before he did it again. Yet I'm the one with the behavioral problem. During these days when I've been re-evaluating whether I give a damn about what these AN/ANI participants think, your message of understanding and good cheer means more than I can say. In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. Tell your son he can write me anytime if he has any questions. Your truly personal remarks mean more to me than I am capable of expressing right now. I will share this exchange with my son tomorrow. Though he's not a Wikipedian, I am sure that he will find the exchange most interesting. His various disabilities give him a uniquely poetic way of expressing himself, but I will pass along anything he might have to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Kiefer, I'd just like to say here that I do have a personal perspective on what you and Cullen's son have gone through, as it is likely in my own future. I do sympathise utterly, and even though I am not, I can see how you've been offended by the comments. I know I agreed specifically to not make comments on discussions that do not concern me at fetchcomms page, but did feel an urge to offer sympathies in this instance. If you feel my comment is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove it. WormTT · (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Worm, thanks for your words and thoughts. And you thought I was "aggressive" a few days ago! Imagine what I was like in my prime! ;) I said elsewhere that the first comment was non-optimal but okay, and I was more concerned with sexism than accusing the first of baiting me to humiliate me. At the ANI, I also took the opportunity to raise awareness with the Livestrong symbol, because awareness and going to a doctor immediately are vital. The AN repetitions were probably just coincidental but I had had enough. The take-home messages are (1) to avoid sexism on WP as elsewhere. It is important to stand up for disempowered people (even those not present) and firmly to demand a stopping of sexism when there is a repetition by a group. This is most important in the US for gay bashing. (2) You can get cancer so you should do self-examinations; if you feel vague weirdness in your abdomen or even by your kidneys (which is where most pain from such is perceived) for more than 2 days, then you should go to a doctor. (And don't worry, most of the time you'd have a benign cyst, anyhow.) You don't have to feel sorry for me. Thanks again for your thoughts. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC) OK .. please allow me to apologize. I am very sorry, and I honestly didn't mean to offend you; nor do I take such things lightly. I removed the user box because the braces were interfering with the close of the thread. Yes, you're absolutely correct in that I should not have made a further remark about "a pair" and for that I am deeply ashamed and ask that you please forgive me. I felt frustrated (and I know that's no excuse) in the sense that I was trying to stop the drama and bickering, and you turned around and opened another thread. The objectionable phrase was a common theme in many of the posts, and I was trying to get you to cease and desist from continuing this drama laden affair. I STILL think you need to back down here, dial it down, and drop the stick, but I did express myself poorly. I am very sorry for any suffering ANY person must endure in life. From an encyclopedic point of view however, it seems so many of the threads are "you" against "many", and in our [Wikipedia] culture, that simply does not go over well. Even if you are RIGHT, ... it's a "consensus" rules culture. I'm just trying to get through to you so you don't get blocked or banned KW. I don't like to see folks run off here. You're honestly walking a very fine line right now, so I ask PLEASE: try to get back UNDER the radar here. Again I am sorry for offending you. It wasn't my intent, I simply wanted your attention, and for you to LISTEN. Best — Ched :  ?  09:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hej Ched! Don't worry. I wrote to somebody else that the phrase just stuck in your head, and you weren't doing anything with ill will: If you were, you would have been more subtle, for starters! Your first repetition of the phrase was slightly irritating, but I remembered your previous comments, and I just thought that you were trying to get me away for my own good. If you were really somebody who enjoyed humiliating people, you would have not been so helpful with your first comments on your talk page. It was Elen's repetition that really irritated me, because I knew that she knows better! (Now that I've cooled off, I well imagine that she was having fun with gender roles, sliding the signs of the signifiers, etc., and probably was using humor to try make AN less tense. I can hear her now, in my mind's ear, a mix between Julie Andrews, Margaret Thatcher, and Miss Marple---now I'm being wicked!) SM's response didn't help .... I was fed up with my perception of the whole ANI/AN experience, over many days. I wish Worm had gone with his first instincts and closed it, or shouted for somebody to close it with conviction, rather than offering a wish.... I may have been unfair to the ANI "regulars", who ignored the thread; I think that almost all of the participants (save Worm) were antagonists or co-editors of mine before hand, so my complaining about ANI was unfair. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I've been wracking my brains for a way that I could have handled that AN/I thread differently and I think you might have struck it. I should have boldly closed that thread on my first comment - hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'll keep that in mind for the future. WormTT · (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Worm, Thanks for the note. Experience is so important. We all learn from our successes and failures, and you will have more confidence and comfortably exert more leadership the next time an meandering and non-constructive ANI thread comes your way. In this case, since you have been somewhat involved before, it was only natural that you were hesitant to close it yourself. It wasn't your responsibility. What's done is done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I am so sorry. Yes it was intended humorously (Joyce Grenfell I think is the most apt - I've always got on well enough on old biddy power), but I can understand how it will be totally offensive to yourself or any man affected by such medical problems, and I would never set out to personalise a noticeboard discussion in that way. Please accept my apology, I certainly had not intended to cause you personal distress. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Elen, Don't worry about it. It is amazing how my mood improved with a few kind notices on this page after the ANI. A swarm of horseflies now looks like a group of people, with the usual curiosities, kindnesses, and flaws of groups of people. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC) In the interests of peace... ...and general goodwill, I apologise if you took my "grow a pair" comment the wrong way. It was never directed at you, and I had not seen your user page so was not aware of your past medical history relating to this. I still believe that you can be overly confrontational but in your defence, we all have times when we do not keep our calm very well. I bid you happy editing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Strange Passerby! Thanks for the note. I have written to others that I didn't believe you had stalked and studied my user page, and so therefore I never assumed that you used the sexist phrase specifically to humiliate me. Nonetheless, phrases like that are not appropriate for work or school, and probably should not be made on WP, also. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Response from my son David Hello Kiefer, I copied the whole "grow a pair" section into a Word document, and then printed it out for my son David to read. I highlighted the most relevant sections and put Xs next to the debate about Baysian probability and frequentism. He's no mathematician, although his uncle in New York is. He read the document, and laughed out loud about the phrase "grow a pair". I asked him about it, and he knew exactly what it meant. He asked me what "cuckoldry" meant, which I explained as the humiliation of a husband whose wife had sex with another man. Otherwise, he understood the issues just fine. He is proofreading as I write now, correcting my typos as I make them. That is one of his skills. He had this message to pass on to you: "You could tell him that your son is happy to know that someone who has gone through a double version of what your son has gone through, also cares about a young man who was so scared he thought he might die on the table. Seriously, I thought that. I am trying to be honest. I imagine that Kiefer Wolfowitz was even more scared of death. I'm trying to give this person my side of my story. What does he do for a living? Tell him I hope he has a nice long life, and lives to have many more happy years." After he read my notes, he added, "If he tells you his job is none of my business, then I will just butt out from it." This is a young man who the experts say has learning disabilities. I say that he has learned a lot. The final thing I want to tell you is that my son David has helped with the Relay for Life in our home town for the last six years, which raises money for the American Cancer Society. We sponsor a team, and he is the most enthusiastic advocate, year after year, to be sure that we are organized and raise the most money possible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Cullen and son! I have to do some professional work that requires some concentration, now, so I shall have to be brief. I am a statistician (and mathematical scientist), but I cannot take sole credit for statistics being the sexiest profession in the world, according to Hal Varian. ;) *LOL* "Cuckoldry" was not the right word, as your excellent definition clarified. I should have written "infidelity". (I think that geneticists rarely publish these numbers, or agree to publicity, because of fear of provoking murders and abuse.) Your son obviously has many talents, particularly in organizing things, and it is a pity that he is not around to keep my workplace more focused on its goals! ;) About disabilities, all of us have disabilities: Compared to Michael Jordan, John von Neumann, Mozart, etc., we are all severely handicapped. For example, the actor James Earl Jones suffered from a severe stutter, which distressed him so much that he stopped talking for 8 years. Now his voice is one of the most famous in the world's history. Even in John Sayles's brilliant Matewan, which is filled with promising young actors who have since become stars, his performance stands out; his character's response to being called "nigger" and "scab" is probably incomprehensible to those who don't understand my reaction to phrases like "fascist", "neo-Nazi", and "democratic centralist". The important thing is to do a good job at whatever you do, and try to find a job that uses your talents, is challenging, and where people work together. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bayesian vs. Frequentist vs. Likelihood

Closed discussion

As a person with only a working knowledge of frequentist statistics, I find the internet to be a bit scarce when it comes to good (and comprehensible) reference articles that contrast these three sub-disciplines. Since you are a statistician and like to add content in here, maybe that is something you can contribute to along with your hated enemies from Bayesian and Likelihood schools. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) The sectarian mind, needing to pigeon-hole statisticians in 2-4 categories and to view the neighboring pigeon-holes as wicked, is loathsome and would be pitiable were it not so prevalent, in some areas, alas. David Cox is a wonderful person, often associated with "likelihood" approaches, and he kindly described himself as an "ardent Bayesian" and "fervent Neyman-Pearsonian", to JRSS/D "The Statistician", after a former student of his (Jim Lindsey) was less than prudent in his enthusiasms (around 2000 if my memory is correct). We should do the same. I would rather read Laplace, Peirce, Fisher, Neyman, Kolmogorov, Cox, even when they use Bayesian methods than I would frequentist Johnny-come-latelies in the lastest version of JASA. It is much more useful to judge statisticians, like religious persons, by the content of their character, by their honest and helpful words, and the fruit of their labors, rather than by the label of their "school", particularly "schools" that were already embarrassing 80 years ago.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) My specialty is not statistics so whatever I know about this field is mostly from rumours :). My supervisor (who's actually a mathematician along with many other things) used to tell me that big white-bearded statisticians would fight passionately over these things. But to be honest, I really don't get what's the big deal about all this. I remember reading ages ago about a coin-flipping example and that a Frequentist would predict the p by maximizing the likelihood and a Bayesian would predict the p by maximizing the posterior with a Dirichlet prior (supposedly because it is convenient to use. wtf?). I'd assume Frequentists would also maximize the posterior if the prior distribution is also known, but I am not really sure. Anyway, if you feel this divide is irrelevant, maybe you should write an article to tell people why it is irrelevant. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I did describe what every intermediate course is supposed to mention, and it was reverted as nonsense. So I wrote the following: Statistics, since 1950 A decision-theoretic justification of the use of Bayesian inference was given by Abraham Wald, who proved that every Bayesian procedure is admissible. Conversely, every admissible statistical procedure is either a Bayesian procedure or a limit of Bayesian procedures. Wald's result also established the Bayesian approach as a fundamental technique in such areas of frequentist inference as point estimation, hypothesis testing, and confidence intervals. Wald characterized admissible procedures as Bayesian procedures (and limits of Bayesian procedures), making the Bayesian formalism a central technique in such areas of frequentist statistics as parameter estimation, hypothesis testing, and computing confidence intervals. For example: "Under some conditions, all admissible procedures are either Bayes procedures or limits of Bayes procedures (in various senses). These remarkable results, at least in their original form, are due essentially to Wald. They are useful because the property of being Bayes is easier to analyze than admissibility." "In decision theory, a quite general method for proving admissibility consists in exhibiting a procedure as a unique Bayes solution." "In the first chapters of this work, prior distributions with finite support and the corresponding Bayes procedures were used to establish some of the main theorems relating to the comparison of experiments. Bayes procedures with respect to more general prior distributions have played a very important in the development of statistics, including its asymptotic theory." "There are many problems where a glance at posterior distributions, for suitable priors, yields immediately interesting information. Also, this technique can hardly be avoided in sequential analysis." "A useful fact is that any Bayes decision rule obtained by taking a proper prior over the whole parameter space must be admissible" "An important area of investigation in the development of admissibility ideas has been that of conventional sampling-theory procedures, and many interesting results have been obtained." Likelihood heuristics are not frequentist The "Likelihood" school has all the problems of Bayesian inference and few of its virtues. Finding a zero of the derivative of the likelihood "function" (and the likelihood "function" is usually not defined as a function unless a Bayesian approach is used) is preferable to "maximum" likelihood estimation in many cases, and certainly for a general asymptotic theory, and it is only a heuristic, with only asymptotic virtues (inferior to the asymptotic theory of maximum posterior estimation, as explained by Ferguson). P.S. A quote from the end of the article on likelihood function: "In many writings by Charles Sanders Peirce, model-based inference is distinguished from statistical procedures based on objective randomization. Peirce's preference for randomization-based inference is discussed in "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" (1877–1878) and "A Theory of Probable Inference" (1883)". "probabilities that are strictly objective and at the same time very great, although they can never be absolutely conclusive, ought nevertheless to influence our preference for one hypothesis over another; but slight probabilities, even if objective, are not worth consideration; and merely subjective likelihoods should be disregarded altogether. For they are merely expressions of our preconceived notions" (7.227 in his Collected Papers). "But experience must be our chart in economical navigation; and experience shows that likelihoods are treacherous guides. Nothing has caused so much waste of time and means, in all sorts of researchers, as inquirers' becoming so wedded to certain likelihoods as to forget all the other factors of the economy of research; so that, unless it be very solidly grounded, likelihood is far better disregarded, or nearly so; and even when it seems solidly grounded, it should be proceeded upon with a cautious tread, with an eye to other considerations, and recollection of the disasters caused." (Essential Peirce, volume 2, pages 108–109)" The neo-Fisherian "method" of "testing hypotheses" on the data generating them was labeled the most dangerous fallacy of induction by Peirce. (Maximum-likelihood estimation was the most popular fallacy!) Reasoning and the Logic of Things (RLT) (The 1898 Lectures in Cambridge, MA) This looks like a very very long read (and I have not even learned there is a "Fisherian" and "Pearsonian" school of thought). Do you think the main differences can be illustrated with a simple defining example? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Example Consider a coin toss. We agree to wait for Jimbo Wales at a Wikimania convention, and we ask one of his disciples for a penny, because it will cure us from our lack of "the sum of all human knowledge". We wish to use this penny in the future, to break the Methodist Book of Discipline by gambling, so we want to know how fair it is. A Bayesian could tell you that he thinks its probability is 50% without doing any computations. The frequentist could give you median/mean-unbiased estimators if you allow him to flip the coin (as could a confused and cowardly Bayesian who is afraid to be called "subjective" and so mumbles "likelihood"). Suppose we flip the coin once. It is heads. The frequentist statistician gives you a mean unbiased estimate of 1, as would the likelihood enthusiast. The Bayesian tells you that his estimate is pretty close to 0.5 still, but now is greater than 0.5. I ask you, if you cared about using this estimate in practice, which of these estimates would you use? A Bayesian statistician could give you a true probability distribution on the parameter space, the interval [0,1], which you could use to do simulations. We could do more flipping, and we would find that after 30 throws, there wouldn't be much difference between them. Asymptotically, all of the estimators will agree, but the Bayesian estimator (say median posterior) is robust and useful for small sample-sizes and can be used honestly by practitioners wanting to do simulations (and unwilling to pick a single number for their parameters). The likelihood approach and the Bayesian approach rely on probability models, which are always wrong (apart from electron emissions, etc.), and which almost always are so bad that nobody bothers updating the posterior when more data arrives. Usually, scientists just improve the measurements by improved experimental technique; the jaw-boning about n goes to infinity is just irrelevant to scientific practice (as Peirce noted long ago). It is better to use design-based inference, using the randomization specified in the sampling/experimental design, than to put up a parametric model, if possible. If inference relies on a model, warning labels should be attached, imho. The posterior median and median-unbiased estimators are invariant under reparametrization. A ML estimator (if defined with some initialization) is invariant somewhat in a weaker sense. The mean-unbiased estimator is not invariant under reparameterization.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Is it typical for a Bayesian to say the probability is 0.5 without any observation? While a uniform prior is popular, I get the impression that that Bayesians simply like to make guesses that Frequentists don't like to make. What's the core difference between the Likelihood people and the Bayesians then? By the way, an example of this form can be re-posted on one of the stats pages. I think it will be a pretty popular read since a lot of us non-statisticians are quite curious about these things. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Hi Bob, Thanks for the compliment and smiley face. It could but copied I would prefer not. Even here, we are getting away from discussing improving articles and leaning towards a help page and discussion form. I assume that some form of symmetry would be usual for standard for most practitioners. A professional magician and statistician like Persi Diaconis probably has an extremely sophisticated prior; I believe he specified one in an article at least once. It was a mixture of three distributions, if I recall. Likelihood people assume that the antecedent likelihood doesn't matter, which is a crazy assumption usually, which also means they don't get a probability distribution as a result, so their results are not directly applicable for predictive inference/decisions. They also have a curious belief that 30=infinity (where "30" is whatever sample size they have in the "data at hand"), a delusion that justifies using "asymptotic" results.  ;) Kolmogorov, who presumably knew something about logic and probability, noted the inapplicability of limiting results in his article ("Tables of Random Numbers"). I hope you won't report me to ANI/AN for noting the relevance of paraconsistent logic to such "statistical theory"! I hope you know I'm being a bit tough on the likelihood enthusiasts. (See my previous endorsement of David Cox, etc.) Their 30=infinity equation must be based on some (usually implicit) assumption that the sampling distribution for 30 is a good approximation to the limiting distribution. But this is a big assumption, particularly for the enormous models we're seeing more in more, based on more and more arbitrary assumptions, in the "likelihood approach"!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't say that's "help page" material since these distinctions should be a pretty important part of statistics that deserve to be documented. I did manage to take a look at the likelihood page [10]. At a first glance, it seemed ridiculous, but after looking at the example, I'd say it's pretty neat. The Bayesians probably would be foaming out of their mouths because there is a missing Dirichlet prior. :) By the way, is the 30=infinity assumption really a Likelihood thing? I thought I've seen it used quite commonly. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC) The likelihood principle begins with a big "if", that the model be correct. In non-paraconsistent logic, beginning with a falsehood immediately causes trouble, so the likelihood principle has nothing to say about practice. It is invoked by people who love their tools, the MLE and LRT, and build their theory to justify their tools. Many Bayesian "theorists" like the likelihood principle, because Bayesian procedures automatically satisfy it, but again, this is the tool wagging the theory. Because the MLE has no optimal finite-sample properties, in general, the Fisherian cult needs to invest in asymptotic theory, and so you have asymptotic theory courses in every statistics department---again, the tools wagging the theory and the science. Much of these courses and graduate programs are scientifically deadly: LeCam's theory and Van Der Vaart's book should only be read by mathematicians; I've seen economists have their minds ruined by a semester with van der Vaart! ;) It would be better if statisticians would replace "asymptotic" by "scientifically irrelevant" for a few decades, to reduce the damage to scientific practice of "doubly robust" procedures, etc. Don't take this too seriously! ;) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Don't worry. I am only treating this as pleasure reading. Most of the statistics I see in scientific literature (of my field and adjacent subject areas) do not get beyond the first 2 undergraduate statistics courses. I agree that delving too deeply into certain scientific schools of thoughts can be harmful to one's perspective. We also have these kinds of phenomena over here in molecular biology especially in areas dealing with evolution and structures (complicated story). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Evolutionary genetic biology is a funny place for statisticians! Too bad Samuel Karlin isn't around to yell at biologists anymore!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Nonparametrics This book is a good overview of how much statistics can be done, and done very well, without any parametric model: Hettmansperger, T. P.; McKean, J. W. (1998). Robust nonparametric statistical methods. Kendall's Library of Statistics. Vol. 5 (First ed.). London: Edward Arnold. pp. xiv+467 pp. ISBN 0-340-54937-8, 0-471-19479-4. MR 1604954. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |location2= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |publisher2= ignored (help) Such methods don't give probability models that can be used for predictive inference and decisions, though.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Statistics since 1950 You should beware of any survey of inference (most unfortunately) which doesn't deal with the following concepts (about which I write in "Statistical inference"). Like any good mathematical theory, it has links to concepts in mathematics and related mathematical sciences (communication theory, computer science, physics, etc.), it improves our understanding of previous results, and raises new questions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Information and computational complexity Main article: Minimum description length See also: Information theory, Kolmogorov complexity, and Data mining Other forms of statistical inference have been developed from ideas in information theory and the theory of Kolmogorov complexity. For example, the minimum description length (MDL) principle selects statistical models that maximally compress the data; inference proceeds without assuming counterfactual or non-falsifiable 'data-generating mechanisms' or probability models for the data, as might be done in frequentist or Bayesian approaches. However, if a 'data generating mechanism' does exist in reality, then according to Shannon's source coding theorem it provides the MDL description of the data, on average and asymptotically. In minimizing description length (or descriptive complexity), MDL estimation is similar to maximum likelihood estimation and maximum a posteriori estimation (using maximum-entropy Bayesian priors). However, MDL avoids assuming that the underlying probability model is known; the MDL principle can also be applied without assumptions that e.g. the data arose from independent sampling. The MDL principle has been applied in communication-coding theory in information theory, in linear regression, and in time-series analysis (particularly for chosing the degrees of the polynomials in Autoregressive moving average (ARMA) models). Information-theoretic statistical inference has been popular in data mining, which has become a common approach for very large observational and heterogeneous datasets made possible by the computer revolution and internet. The evaluation of statistical inferential procedures often uses techniques or criteria from computational complexity theory or numerical analysis. Freedman, David A. (2009). Statistical models: Theory and practice (revised ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. xiv+442 pp. ISBN 978-0-521-74385-3. MR 2489600. Hansen, Mark H.; Yu, Bin (2001). "Model Selection and the Principle of Minimum Description Length: Review paper". Journal of the American Statistical Association. 96 (454): 746–774. doi:10.1198/016214501753168398. JSTOR 2670311. MR 1939352. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Rissanen, Jorma (1989). Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquiry. Series in computer science. Vol. 15. Singapore: World Scientific. ISBN 9971508591. MR 1082556. Soofi, Ehsan S. (2000). "Principal Information-Theoretic Approaches (Vignettes for the Year 2000: Theory and Methods, ed. by George Casella)". Journal of the American Statistical Association. 95 (452): 1349–1353. JSTOR 2669786. MR 1825292. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Traub, Joseph F.; Wasilkowski, G. W.; Wozniakowski, H. (1988). Information-Based Complexity. Academic Press. ISBN 0126975450. Interesting. I didn't actually realize MAP estimation is necessarily a Bayesian approach. I thought the frequentist school of thought does allow a prior to be used if its distribution can be sampled? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) It is a bad idea to discuss "frequentist" and usually better to use "sampling-distribution based". De Finetti defined probability distributions so that they could be verified by observing sequences of experiments and falsified by observing finite sequences of experiments, so again some Bayesian ideas are frequentist (more precisely than so-called "frequentist" statistics). Oscar Kempthorne helped to invent MAP (or was it a variant of conjugate gradient methods---senility strikes me?). He was hard core on randomization, but he acknowledged the place of Bayesian statistics in predictive inference and decisions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn#Estrangement with Harrington

Dear Friend,

I have a bit of a problem with this section. What exactly is the source of Rachelle Horowitz's thoughts about this incident? It seems like WP:UNDUE might apply here. If this was simply a misunderstanding by Harrington, and Kahn had nothing to do with writing the speech in question, then why does this incident belong in Kahn's biography? If Kahn didn't write the slurs, then the story says more about the defects in Michael Harrington's political radar at that point in time than it says anything about Tom Kahn. If it is intended to cast light on Kahn's internal conflicts about homosexuality and politics 40 years ago, then that needs to be spelled out a bit more clearly, and referenced solidly. Just my thoughts, based on knowing nothing more about the incident than what you've written here, and that you are a serious student of these matters, while I am little more than a casual but interested passerby. Best regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen:

I have long shared your concerns about WP:Undue. I first didn't want to write about his mess, and then cautioned on the talk page of the article that care was needed. I think that it would be OR to draw conclusions from the facts presented.

My OR would clearly state that Kahn was subjected to the double-standard that gays or African-Americans often face. They, despite having little power, are supposed to police their organization's for discriminatory practices, and they are blamed and called self-haters, or betrayers, or "Uncle Toms" by people who dislike them for other reasons. And the AFL-CIO of 1972 was not the same AFL-CIO that sponsors Pride at Work. (I don't understand how Meany could have said those words anyhow, given his knowledge of Kahn's being gay, or of Rustin's either.) I suppose that I could reference an academic discussion of double standards, but such a juxtaposition would violate the spirit of WP:OR.

In this case, Horowitz and Puddington may be correct that Isserman should have investigated this charge and documented his conclusion with greater care, with the care for which he is justly renowned on other questions.

RE: Horowitz: Horowitz was a friend of Kahn's through his high school to the end, and a nationally prominent Democratic Party and AFT leader, and she spent a good chunk of the first 2 years of her formal retirement, apparently, writing her article, which is carefully documented. Her conclusion is based on first-hand knowledge. Irving Howe's assessment of her is given in the interview where he discusses Kahn: She was just as smart but would be more generous in discussing Michael Harrington, according to Howe. She does not discuss Newfield's statement that Harrington pitched him the story and gave Newfield the speech.

My concern is that the scape-goating of Kahn appeared not only in Newfield but also in Isserman, and the latter's book is usually very carefully documented (as were his previous books). This is such a serious charge: I don't repeat Newfield's sanctimonious/spiteful evaluation "he betrayed himself". (Given this poisoning, it seems useful to record that Kahn was treated badly, partly because he was gay, by those in SDS: Newfield does not state that he said, "Now, TH Do not throw things at the other Tom, even if you think he's a wimp because he's gay. In fact, you should walk away, you look like you are threatening him".) Then before his death Newfield blames Kahn for Meany's gay-baiting, despite acknowledging that Harrington pitched him the story.

Isserman wrote that Harrington "brooded" over Kahn's actions to "sabotage" the SI application for DSOC or DSOC's 1983 Eurosocialism conference: Isserman wrote that these SI events had an "exaggerated" importance for MH. The PA SDUSA/SPA group had a public apology for these actions, which seems to me a bit melodramatic.

I have not reported about Kahn's giving nasty interviews in 72-73, either, mainly because the WSJ doesn't seem to have them available. Also WP:Undue is relevant.

Let me hear from a few others on the WP:Undue weight question.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush here, and it would be great if a few other voices chimed in. The fact that you are thinking so seriously about the matter is good enough for me. Warm regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think you know may know that Isserman has gone on to become a well-respected historian of mountaineering, which is one of my pet interests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember your comments well, as I remember your help with Robert Phelps, for which thanks are again due.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

George Meany

I was going to quip that if you could understand the workings of George Meany's mind, that you would have to be some sort of magician or mystic. So before tossing off a cheap joke, I decided to glance at his biography here on Wikipedia. Oh My Gosh! That article gives lie to those who argue that Wikipedia is pretty much "done". Incredibly weak, incredibly short, totally inadequate. What a sad commentary on Wikipedia's shortcomings in 2011. We have lots of work to do, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I did remove a rant from that. A problem is that for every one Hal Draper there are 50 [enthusiasts without Draper's smarts, honesty, and scholarly sitzfleisch]. I much prefer snake handlers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks, didnt even realise its been 10 days ;) Agree with your mutuality. just peeved on the blatant HYPOCRISY of stuff one way vs. the other. (a la Bahrain right now (as if only Sunni yankee stooges have the right to freedom)). I know peeps and family in the US marines and the hocus-pocus shit they do knowing they can get away with it.

WP admins are the biggest dictators and hyporcitical s***. We need a 2011 Wikipedia revolution ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lihaas,

I'm afraid that you haven't been writing like your normal self the last weeks. Please take it easy.

You are too valuable to this project, the most consulted information source in the world, to get yourself blocked. Your work on the 2011 revolts this years has been more worthwhile than the work of the 50 random administrators combined. Please safeguard yourself and your reputation here, which you have established by years of hard work and cooperation.

Maybe you could help with the articles on Freedom in the World, Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, and Carl Gershman? The Gershman biography has a DYK needing checking ....

Men with guns are always present a threat, particularly when the armed men are strangers in others' land: Do you remember the Rodney King riots? Men with guns do bad things in the U.S., too. Police departments have only recently been dealing with the problems of domestic violence which have been historically high among police families.

I remember stating that jubilation at the death of Bin Laden was ghoulish but perhaps some grim satisfaction was appropriate, just as my Kurdish friends probably felt after the execution of Saddam Hussein. I trust that Obama will focus on peace negotiations now.

I wish you peace, my friend.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Major modifications to Orthogonal Convex Hull article

Dear Kiefer,

By reviewing the revision history of the Orthogonal convex hull article, I noticed that you made some modifications. Right now I am restructuring and expanding the content of this article, and I would like to know if you are willing to help in its improvement. I have added some templates to the original article, and have an under construction version in my sandbox. This is my first time editing an article, so any comment would be greatly appreciated.--Carlos Alegría (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carlos!

Thanks for remembering my one edit, but it was just to classify the article within the convex hull category. My ignorance is too great for me to be of any use, here, I'm afraid!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging

Hi Kiefer. Thank you very much for your comments, you've given me a lot to read through. Please do feel free to keep going, I will be responding as soon as I have digested it all Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. I'm sorry to see that you are treating this as a full blown RfC, with proposals and notifications to other users. The idea was still that we would thrash it out together, and come up with a solution. I did point this out by email. But unfortunately things haven't turned out quite as I'd planned - and I am beginning to see that since you still think I have an ulterior motive, an RfC with the rest of the community involved is the only viable option. I can prepare this on or off wiki, so if you'd rather the current draft is deleted, please do let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT/Dave,

Your user space is public and covered by the WP license and so now is part of the public record forever. I answered the points you raised in this public venue, after I had volunteered to discuss them with you privately. You rejected a private discussion.

I never stated that you have an ulterior motive and I do not think that.

I question your judgment, particularly around DU10^3, which is why I suggested a conditional interaction ban, following a two-sided interaction ban between DU10^3 and myself.

I have no idea what you mean by "the rest of the community".

I have to run. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is part of public record, should you chose to look at it that way. As I did mention though, I had offered to delete it - it would not be accessible to the public. I did reject private discussion, as I needed it to be part of public record, should it fail - as I explained.

I'm sorry you question my judgement about Demiurge and I can understand why. I don't know what you expect me to do about that though - it does not affect anything.

By rest of the community, I mean that the RfC will now be open to all, when I put it live. Anyone will be free to put in outside views, and so on. But I'm sure you know this, it's all well detailed at WP:RfC/U.

For now, I expect we won't need to interact for a little while. I'm sorry this didn't have a more constructive solution. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT/Dave,

Your user space is public and covered by the WP license and so now is part of the public record forever. I answered the points you raised in this public venue, after I had volunteered to discuss them with you privately. You rejected a private discussion.

I never stated that you have an ulterior motive and I do not think that.

I question your judgment, particularly around DU10^3, which is why I suggested a conditional interaction ban, following a two-sided interaction ban between DU10^3 and myself. We have agreed that your intervention at ANI was not your best effort, partly for understandable reasons I have volunteered, and I have expressed skepticism that you have a reasonable goal with this RfC. Your initial efforts increase my skepticism about this being a good use of anybody's time, especially mine.

What are you trying to accomplish?

1. You want me to state that all editors are equal? (If not, why bring up the point about "KW thinks some editors are better than others"?)
2. You want me to pledge not to mention age or minor-status at RfAs? (If not, why mention age or "young RfA candidates"?)
3. You want me to stop pointing out editing problems at RfAs?
4. etc.

I had hoped that you would have focused on a few issues, and at least avoided stating ridiculous complaints, like your complaint that I had asked that an editor be blocked for trolling on my talk page. This is just sloppy beyond belief. To avoid such a waste of time, I asked you to mail my privately, so I could have at least asked you to delete the nonsense. Well, I told you so.

I have no idea what you mean by "the rest of the community".

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct - I'd mixed up a few quotes within a few days of each other, where you'd ask for Snottywong to be blocked for religious attacks[11] (and only be unblocked if he apologised) - and one where you'd said he was trolling[12]. Two issues, which I would have sorted out before I'd finished getting things ready. Similarly with the items which I stated I needed to research further. But no matter, all will be sorted in due course.

As for what I'm trying to accomplish, I'd like you to acknowledge that anyone can edit this encyclopedia and that your attitude is making a less collaborative atmosphere. I'd like you to stop "looking down" on editors. I'd like you to not badger editors you disagree with. I'd like you to attempt to keep to a reasonable civility restriction. I'd like you to recognise you are part of a community. Anyway, as I said, don't concern yourself with this now. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave up making lists like that when I figured out that Santa Claus could not instantaneously deposit presents at the stroke of midnight in every time zone without exceeding the speed of light. I take it that Augustinian teaching on Original Sin was not part of your religious uprbringing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Successor Organizations

KW, thanks for the GREAT work on the Social Democrats USA article. I would be pleased to correspond with you through email because I am Wikipedia illiterate. I can provide you some additional source material. regards, Rick D'Loss, National Co-Chair, Social Democrats USA. richard.dloss@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.242.119 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rick,

Thank you for your kind words.

You and other WP editors are welcome to use the email link (above) to contact me with private information.

In general, however, discussions leading to editing should be made on article talk pages. There seem to be two groups of SDUSA successors, both looking like nice persons and good social democrats, being rivals, so this is a case where all should be especially cautious about off-wiki communications.

Best regards/In solidarity,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)